Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqS+NunXL2==ydC6O16SdGzFQjOyv5bJLdpbk4urqawLVw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables in VACUUM commands  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Allow users to specify multiple tables inVACUUM commands  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I am fine with an ERROR if a column list is specified without ANALYZE
>>> listed in the options. But that should happen as well for the case
>>> where only one relation is listed.
>
>> Perhaps this could be changed for 10? Changing the behavior in
>> back-branches looks sensitive to me.
>
> It would make more sense to me to change it as part of the feature
> addition, when/if this patch gets committed.  Otherwise, we just break
> code that works today and we can't point to any solid benefit.

Fine for me as well. I would suggest to split the patch into two parts
to ease review then:
- Rework this error handling for one relation.
- The main patch.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] PG10: libpq doesn't connect to alternativehosts when some errors occur
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: proposal - using names as primary names of plpgsqlfunction parameters instead $ based names